Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #4 · Jen - Beauty Portraits (Part II) |
John Caldwell wrote:
Nice series, just like the last you posted.
Like you I own and enjoy large aperture lenses. But I've been rethinking my application of those tools on reviewing my work, as I'm seeing an unfavorable trend in my results: The very limited DOF, while prized by us as photographers, doesn't always improve shots like this. Aside form wishing her face was sharper, I'd also have liked greater sense of the environs than your high degree of lens blur offers. So for compositions like #4, I'm advocating more rare use of the 1.2-1.8 lifestyle, and more shots at, say, 2.5 to 4. That way when a series is presented, the really narrow DOF shots "mean more" to me as a viewer because you've shown us greater context with your greater dof shots. I don't mean to offer the 'opinion masquerading as fact' feedback - it's just my thought.
very good point you make John, thank you for taking the time to put it into words - i often feel the same way, though i still mostly lean towards shooting at f/1.6 with the 50L or at f/2 with the 135L when i do beauty portraits.. however, i definitely think more about showing the environment when i shoot engagement/wedding portraits - i agree that offering a context for each photo allows us to better tell the story of a day/moment.. i'm personally just still very partial to the "watercolour" bokeh effect for beauty portraits, to me it keeps the focus on the model's face, with everything else being secondary.. thanks for your thoughts John!